I've lost track of how many EOs tiny has signed. I'm sure the number is huge.
Any focused on the price of ****ing eggs?
Any focused on the price of ****ing eggs?
How Many Exec Orders or Legislative Proposals Have Focused on the Price Of Eggs and Inflation Since trump?
- Thread starter noStemsnoSTICKS
- Start date
dunno, but read today that an egg truck was hijacked in pa
Is he supposed to sign and EO requiring chickens to stop getting the bird flu?
The maggot way. Never about policy. Always about "owning the libs."
That would be one option, but not a very good one, patriot.
Just put all those infected birds on a ship off the Pacific Coast...like Trump wanted to do with people that had Covid in the early stages of the pandemic!
He's got a big brain, he's gonna have a super response.
Was Biden? Was the criticism of Biden unfounded? Is Trump a fear mongering hypocrite? These questions make me stop, think critically, and deal with an existential crisis.
It's cute how you avoid the real point of this thread and think it's literally about chickens.
You don't think attempting to cut federal spending, which reduces monies borrowed would have an impact of inflation? Who knew? It's must be the new HROT economics. lol.
Based on his prior presidential record of being the largest spender in history, I don't see a reduction on the horizon. In fact, I bet you he signs the continuing resolution in March to increase federal spending.
His entire campaign was about lowering inflation and the cost of goods and services. So I'm surprised we haven't seen those topics addressed. Aren't you?
Last edited:
Well, eggs are groceries. And we all heard his major league promise that he was going to lower the price of groceries immediately. We all know that was now a big lie. So I guess he can't do anything about the price of eggs, because he can't do anything about the price of groceries. Even though he lied to us about lowering those prices. Let me make that a little more clear. He basically lied to all the maga cult lemmings. Actual people with common sense knew he couldn't do that, but the cult lemmings bought it hook, line and sinker. Now they're standing there holding their asses in their hands wondering why they believed that big lie. Or how the lie was Biden's fault.
Here’s the thing. Nothing he’s doing right now is going to cut spending.
Actually if you pay attention, it's all about policy.
I will pay $10 a f*cking egg to keep watching DJT take a blowtorch to this temple of thieves, pedos and traitors, burn it to the ground and piss on the ashes.”
Which policy?
No, he's a spender as they all are. This said your post asked if any EO's would impact inflation positively. I answered your question accurately. If his EO's stand up they certainly would have an impact in inflation on a vacuum. Nothing happens in a vacuum however, including the ridiculous point you unsuccessfully attempt to make in your OP.
On the contrary, the point I made is crystal clear. He's done jack shit to address inflation and the general costs of goods and services.
Because of your bias, you look at his record with rose colored glasses and can only cite abstract ways the EOs affect inflation and the cost of eggs.
Abstract? lol. The unsuccessful point you attempted to make doesn't have nearly enough sample size to determine anything yet. You essentially are regurgitating a talking point about the price of eggs. At least I hope you are, becuase if this is your independent thought you likely have large issues.
Remains to be seen. I'd say based on the one injunction/order where the Judge made it clear existing funding was the issue, and completely backed off of new funding you'd be incorrect. I guess I'd say that, and so would the Judge, but what do Judge's know?
The orders posted on here in an attempt to validate a factually inaccurate post where the poster apparently didn't bother to read it. Makes it easy for me when those I disagree with make my points for me. Also make it easy for me to largely ignore certain posters. Not becuase I disagree, but becuase they post falsehoods.
Anyway, it is what it is, not what some want it to be.
I think the appearance of cutting spending will be justification for the real goal, Getting Billionaires their tax cut.
We'll see. Last time I checked billionaires paid more taxes in the aggregate than everyone else, so if they get a tax cut that makes common sense. If you want to discuss tax policy I'm open to that also, so long as you don't start using partisan think tank projections. The original post was clear, and my answer was both clear and accurate.
Newsflash: CONGRESS controls spending.
POTUS does not get to unilaterally decide to not spend funds that have been allocated by congress.
You might wish to check on the areas of Congressionally appropriated funds where POTUS can indeed unilaterally decide not to spend funds.
Thanks for the Newsflash though.
Show me an instance where POTUS did not spend funds and why.
It’s a congressionally approved program. Trump cannot end a program on a whim.
Last time I checked the richest 10% in aggregate accounted for 2/3 of the country’s wealth. Getting a tax cut is not common sense IMO. I guess we have different values, I’m not a fan of the wealth gap in the U.S. getting wider and wider.
Can you cite any meaningful legislation or an executive order that specifically addresses inflation, the cost of groceries, etc., since trump took office?
All the time. You're confused that what Trump is doing is impoundment, it is deferral. Can't extend beyond the current fiscal year.
Your questions was answered accurately and quickly. You might not understand the answer, but that is your issue. Good luck to you in your endeavors.
You provided an abstract hypothetical. My question was specific, as it asked for a number.
For example, If you asked, "How many EOs have focused on changing the name of major bodies of water?"
I would have answered, "One(1)"
I'll ask again to give you the opportunity to save face. How many exec orders or legislative proposals have focused on the price of eggs and inflation since trump?
Similar threads
